COMMERCIAL MANAGER, E. RAILWAY vs GIRDHARILAL SARAF

-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I. The present appellant (Railways) was the O.P. before the Forum while the respondent (Sri G.L. Saraf) was the complainant. The brief facts of the case are summarised below.

THE complainant purchased six confirmed AC chair car tickets from Rampurhat for journey from Rampurhat to Howrah on 12.11.2000 with the instruction that the complainant and his family would actually board the train at Bolpur. But when they boarded the train at Bolpur, they found that their reserved seats had been allotted to other passengers. According to the complainant the T.T.E. on duty could allot only two seats to the complainant, but could not do anything for the other four holders of confirmed tickets. As a result they had to travel to Howrah without seats and thereby suffered considerable hardship and inconvenience. THE complainant''s wife being asthma patient felt nervous during the journey. Upon lodging a complaint, the Railway Authority (O.P.) admitted the lapse and agreed to refund Rs. 1,308/- being the purchase price of the said tickets, but declined any compensation. THE complainant filed a case before the Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) for the hardship, inconvenience and mental agony suffered besides Rs. 1,308/- being the price of six tickets. The O.Ps. filed a written objection. The defence of the Railways was that the boarding point of the complainant party was inadvertently not recorded in the Reservation Register and as a result the same was also not reflected in the working reservation chart with the T.T.E. The T.T.E however waited for the complainant family upto Ahmedpur Station and thereafter allotted four seats (out of six seats reserved by the complainant family) to other passengers. At Bolpur Station where the complainant family boarded the train, the T.T.E. offered two vacant seats to them. But the complainant refused to take the two seats and they left the coach at the next station viz., Guskara. On the basis of the application of the complainant for refund of fare and compensation, the Rly. Authority agreed to refund the fare in full and intimated the complainant accordingly. However the complainant, being not allowed the compensation , filed the case before the Forum. [The District Forum upon hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and ordered the O.P. to pay Rs. 60,000/- (sixty thousand) by way of compensation to the complainant]. Being aggrieved by this order the O.P. has filed the present appeal.

In the memo of appeal the appellants have taken the following main grounds: (i) The complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and did not disclose all the material facts. He did not frankly state how he and his family actually travelled from Bolpur to Howrah.

(ii) The complainant did not produce any evidence to justify his claim for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Forum''s award of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation is highly excessive, baseless and without legal proof. There is no evidence that the complainant suffered any actual loss and hence his claim for compensation was not bona fide.

(iii) The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for refund of railway fare as it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal.

DURING the hearing of the appeal, the question of maintainability was first taken up, Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant referred to Section 13(1)(b) and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and contended that in regard to any dispute regarding refund of fare no Court or authority shall be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction. He also cited and, order passed by the Bihar State Commission, III (1996) CPJ 411, in support of his contention. Mr. Alok Mukherjee learned Advocate for the respondent cited an order passed by the National Commission, 1997 NCJ 473 (NC), and contended that as per that order of National Commission, the dispute in the present matter does not at all fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act because the grievance put forward by the complainant is primarily deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the resultant harassment, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant for which he has claimed compensation. Mr. Mukherjee argued that in such a situation where the plea is deficiency in service, the doors of the Consumer Court cannot be shut. We have perused the case laws cited by the two sides and upon a careful consideration we find that the order of the National Commission is very much applicable in the present matter as the facts are very similar and moreover this order has come from a higher Forum. In view of such reasons we hold that the complaint is maintainable.

AFTER deciding in favour of main-tainability the matter is heard on merits. There are certain admitted facts. The complainant purchased six AC chair car tickets at Rampurhat for journey from Rampurhat to Howrah, but with boarding at Bolpur. The stipulation of boarding at Bolpur was not recorded in the reservation chart and the T.T.E. allotted four seats out of the six to other passengers. At Bolpur where the complainant and his family boarded the train, they were offered only two seats which they refused. As a result of this lapse the complainant and his family suffered considerable hardship and inconvenience and mental agony. The Railway authorities have already offered to refund Rs. 1,308/- being the price of the six tickets. But the complainant has not accepted the same as the Railways did not agree to pay any compensation. On the basis of the admitted facts it is quite clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/appellant and, therefore, the complainant deserves some compensation in addition to the refund of the fare. The only question that remains to be decided is the amount of compensation that should be admissible to the complainant. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but did not make any attempt to justify the amount. The Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-, but its order is silent about the basis on which this figure was decided. The appellant has assailed this amount as highly excessive and baseless. It may be noted that the O.Ps. took the defence that the fact of boarding at Bolpur was not recorded in the reservation chart due to inadvertence. In our opinion there is no reason to disbelieve it. It does not stand to reason to accept that the Railway Authorities deliberately did not record the fact of boarding at Bolpur, because by doing so the Railway Authorities did not stand to gain in any manner. Therefore, the lapse on the part of the O.P./appellant was in all probability unintentional. Moreover the complainant has failed to establish the amount of actual loss suffered by him if any by adducing necessary evidence. He has not even clarified as to how he and his family actually travelled from Bolpur to Howrah and whether any expenses were incurred by him for such travel. It is a well-settled principle that the complainant has to justify the quantum of compensation claimed by him, but in this case we do not come across any such justification. Having regard to the above discussion we agree with the contention of the appellant that the compensation of Rs. 60,000/- that has been awarded is highly excessive and baseless. We do agree, however that due to the lapse of the Railway Authorities, even though unintentional, the complainant and his family had to suffer considerable inconvenience, anxiety and mental agony. Therefore, he is entitled to some compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Unfortunately there is no material on record on the basis of which the compensation amount could be worked out precisely. In the circumstances in our opinion it would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to the complainant to meet the ends of justice. Of course the complainant would also get the refund of Rs. 1,308/- being the price of the tickets, which the O.Ps. have already agreed to pay. Accordingly it is ordered that the O.Ps., i.e., the Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway will pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order. The complainant would also get the refund amount of Rs. 1,308/- as already offered by the O.Ps. Thus the appeal succeeds in part and the impugned order of the Forum is modified as stated above. The Forum did not award any cost and taking into account the circumstances we also do not pass any order as to cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.